The Use of Clinical Registries in the United States: A Landscape Survey.

Seth Blumenthal
{"title":"The Use of Clinical Registries in the United States: A Landscape Survey.","authors":"Seth Blumenthal","doi":"10.5334/egems.248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of information from clinical registries for improvement and value-based payment is increasing, yet information about registry use is not widely available. We conducted a landscape survey to understand registry uses, focus areas and challenges. The survey addressed the structure and organization of registry programs, as well as their purpose and scope.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The survey was conducted by the National Quality Registry Network (NQRN), a community of organizations interested in registries. NQRN is a program of the PCPI, a national convener of medical specialty and professional societies and associations, which constitute a majority of registry stewards in the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We surveyed 152 societies and associations, asking about registry programs, governance, number of registries, purpose and data uses, data collection, expenses, funding and interoperability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate was 52 percent. Many registries were self-funded, with 39 percent spending less than $1 million per year, and 32 percent spending $1-9.9 million. The typical registry had three full-time equivalent staff. Registries were frequently used for quality improvement, benchmarking and clinical decision support. 85 percent captured outpatient data. Most registries collected demographics, treatments, practitioner information and comorbidities; 53 percent captured patient-reported outcomes. 88 percent used manual data entry and 18 percent linked to external secondary data sources. Cost, interoperability and vendor management were barriers to continued registry development.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Registries captured data across a broad scope, audited data quality using multiple techniques, and used a mix of automated and manual data capture methods. Registry interoperability was still a challenge, even among registries using nationally accepted data standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":"5 1","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/10/ca/egems-5-1-248.PMC5994955.pdf","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.248","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Introduction: The use of information from clinical registries for improvement and value-based payment is increasing, yet information about registry use is not widely available. We conducted a landscape survey to understand registry uses, focus areas and challenges. The survey addressed the structure and organization of registry programs, as well as their purpose and scope.

Setting: The survey was conducted by the National Quality Registry Network (NQRN), a community of organizations interested in registries. NQRN is a program of the PCPI, a national convener of medical specialty and professional societies and associations, which constitute a majority of registry stewards in the United States.

Methods: We surveyed 152 societies and associations, asking about registry programs, governance, number of registries, purpose and data uses, data collection, expenses, funding and interoperability.

Results: The response rate was 52 percent. Many registries were self-funded, with 39 percent spending less than $1 million per year, and 32 percent spending $1-9.9 million. The typical registry had three full-time equivalent staff. Registries were frequently used for quality improvement, benchmarking and clinical decision support. 85 percent captured outpatient data. Most registries collected demographics, treatments, practitioner information and comorbidities; 53 percent captured patient-reported outcomes. 88 percent used manual data entry and 18 percent linked to external secondary data sources. Cost, interoperability and vendor management were barriers to continued registry development.

Conclusions: Registries captured data across a broad scope, audited data quality using multiple techniques, and used a mix of automated and manual data capture methods. Registry interoperability was still a challenge, even among registries using nationally accepted data standards.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床登记在美国的使用:一项景观调查。
导论:临床注册信息用于改善和基于价值的支付的使用正在增加,但有关注册使用的信息并不广泛可用。我们进行了一项景观调查,以了解登记处的用途、重点领域和挑战。该调查讨论了注册表程序的结构和组织,以及它们的目的和范围。背景:这项调查是由国家质量注册网络(NQRN)进行的,这是一个对注册感兴趣的组织社区。NQRN是PCPI的一个项目,PCPI是医学专业和专业学会和协会的全国召集人,这些协会和协会构成了美国注册管理人员的大多数。方法:我们调查了152个学会和协会,询问注册项目、治理、注册数量、目的和数据使用、数据收集、费用、资金和互操作性。结果:有效率为52%。许多注册中心都是自筹资金的,39%的注册中心每年的支出少于100万美元,32%的注册中心每年的支出为100万至990万美元。典型的登记处有三个全职工作人员。登记经常用于质量改进、基准制定和临床决策支持。85%的门诊数据。大多数登记收集人口统计、治疗、从业人员信息和合并症;53%捕获了患者报告的结果。88%的人使用手动数据输入,18%的人链接到外部辅助数据源。成本、互操作性和供应商管理是继续注册中心开发的障碍。结论:注册中心在广泛的范围内捕获数据,使用多种技术审计数据质量,并混合使用自动和手动数据捕获方法。注册中心互操作性仍然是一个挑战,即使在使用国家认可的数据标准的注册中心之间也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Implementing a Novel Quality Improvement-Based Approach to Data Quality Monitoring and Enhancement in a Multipurpose Clinical Registry. A Spatial Analysis of Health Disparities Associated with Antibiotic Resistant Infections in Children Living in Atlanta (2002–2010) Predicting the Incidence of Pressure Ulcers in the Intensive Care Unit Using Machine Learning Applying a Commercialization-Readiness Framework to Optimize Value for Achieving Sustainability of an Electronic Health Data Research Network and Its Data Capabilities: The SAFTINet Experience. Innovative Data Science to Transform Health Care: All the Pieces Matter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1